ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal from Civil and Administrative Tribunal – whether decision made by validly constituted tribunal – four-member tribunal was constituted for the purposes of the hearing – whether principal member could separately and simultaneously constitute herself as the tribunal to decide legal questions – single member of a multi-person tribunal which has already been constituted not authorised to constitute himself or herself as the tribunal on unstated informal basis or to make a decision unilaterally without recourse to the balance of the tribunal – decision void

Constitutional law (Cth) – Courts – Federal courts – Federal jurisdiction – Matter arising under Commonwealth law – Where Commonwealth law provides rules in respect of parentage of children born of artificial conception procedures – Where State law provides irrebuttable presumption that biological father of child conceived by fertilisation procedure is not father in specified circumstances – Whether s 79(1) of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) operates to pick up and apply text of State law as Commonwealth law – Whether State law regulates exercise of jurisdiction – Whether Commonwealth law has "otherwise provided" within meaning of s 79(1) of Judiciary Act – Whether tests for contrariety under s 79(1) of Judiciary Act and s 109 of Constitution identical – Whether State law applies of its own force in federal jurisdiction.

Family law – Parenting orders – Meaning of "parent" – Where Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) presumes best interests of child served by shared parental responsibility – Where s 60H of Family Law Act provides rules in respect of parentage of children born of artificial conception procedures – Where appellant provided semen to first respondent to conceive child with belief that he was fathering child – Where appellant had ongoing role in child's financial support, health, education and general welfare and enjoyed extremely close and secure attachment relationship with child – Where first respondent later in de facto relationship with second respondent – Where appellant found to be "parent" within ordinary meaning of word but not under s60H – Whether s60H exhaustive of persons who may qualify as "parent" of child born of artificial conception procedure – Whether "parent" used in Family Law Act according to ordinary meaning except as otherwise provided – Whether appellant is "parent" within ordinary meaning – Whether ordinary meaning of "parent" excludes "sperm donor" – Whether appellant is "sperm donor".

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – decision under the Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999 – SIRA proper officer refused application for further assessment of a medical dispute – whether proper officer’s decision affected by error of law on the face of the record or jurisdictional error – failure to address substantial, clearly articulated argument – error established – decision set aside and matter remitted for redetermination according to law

COSTS – where first defendant filed a submitting appearance in the primary matter – where first defendant took no active part in primary matter – costs sought by plaintiff – ordinary rule for costs – basis to vary the ordinary rule

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – definition – whether “fault” is synonymous with liability or means, in the context of the tort of negligence, breach of duty – whether fault includes causation

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – application for mandatory and discretionary exemption from CARS assessment – no reasons required when discretionary exemption refused – reasons of claims assessor to be read fairly as a whole – no error established

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – where liquidator seeks order to pay distributions into Court pursuant to r 18.03(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 – whether there are competing claims concerning distributions per r 18.01(b)(ii) of the Rules – where liquidator claims no interest in property – interpleader relief granted by way of payment of distributions into Court

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Judicial Review - first defendant sought damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident – application by plaintiff that the claim be exempt from informal assessment process on the grounds that first defendant made false and misleading statements – question of error of law or jurisdictional error on the part of the Assessor - whether Assessor asked the correct question - errors established - matter remitted for determination according to law

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Where first defendant sought damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident – Where plaintiff sought that the claim be exempt from informal assessment process on the grounds that it was not suitable for assessment in that way due to the plaintiff’s false and misleading statements – Whether there was error of law or jurisdictional error on the part of the Assessor – Whether the Assessor asked the correct question – Whether the Assessor’s reasons were adequate – Errors established – Matter remitted for determination according to law

Practice and procedure – Costs – Where first defendant filed an appearance submitting to all orders of the Court – Where plaintiff succeeded in obtaining the relief sought – No reason for the plaintiff not to be awarded costs in its favour

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial Review – Professional Services Review Scheme under Part VAA of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) – where Professional Services Review Committee found applicant doctor engaged in "inappropriate practice" as defined in s 82(1)(a) – where Committee found that applicant engaged in a prescribed pattern of services by rendering more than 80 services on each of 20 or more days in the review period – where Committee found that there were no exceptional circumstances under reg 11(b) of the Health Insurance (Professional Services Review) Regulations 1999 (Cth) because there was not an absence of other medical services for the applicant's patients – whether the Committee erred by finding an alternative medical centre provided a readily and reasonably available alternative for the applicant's patients – whether applicant bears the burden of proving the existence of exceptional circumstances – whether reg 11(b) required the Committee to consider whether alternative medical services were available on each and every day in the review period – whether the Committee impermissibly considered practice management considerations

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial Review – Professional Services Review Scheme under Part VAA of the Health Insurance Act – procedural fairness – where Committee called a witness to give evidence which contradicted the applicant's evidence a week before the last day of hearing – where notice did not encompass all evidence given by the witness at the hearing – where Committee relied on the witness' evidence to find that exceptional circumstances did not exist – whether the Committee was required to give the applicant a further opportunity to respond to witness' evidence – whether the finding was an adverse conclusion which was not obviously open on the known material

HEALTH LAW – Health Insurance (General Medical Services Table) Regulations 2012 (Cth) – construction of reg 2.15.1 and MBS item 597 – whether urgency is assessed when a practitioner determines to make an attendance or whether it is assessed at the time of an examination of the patient